JUDGMENT

I.A.8684/2022

1. An application under Order VI Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as CPC) has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff for amendment to incorporate the shares of the parties on account of death of some of the original parties and for correction in suit valuation in various paragraphs of the plaint.

2. It is submitted in the application that due to the demise of some of the parties during the pendency of the suit, the sahams/ shares of the surviving parties/ legal representatives/heirs of the deceased who are already party on record have changed. Hence, the plaintiff seeks to amendment the plaint by adding paragraph 9A to 9F describing the shares of the various parties to the present suit.

3. Further, the value of the properties as referred to in paragraph 13, 14 and 15 and in Exhibit 1, 2 and 3 which are the subject matter of the partition in this suit, was based on Government/Tax Authorities valuation/estimates done much prior to the date of filing of the plaint. The plaintiff verily believes that the market value of the properties in the Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 taken together at the time of filing of the plaint was Rs.25 crore. Hence, the plaintiff seeks permission to amend paragraph 22 to amend the suit valuation as Rs.25 crores with the share of the plaintiff on partition estimated as Rs.1,01,27,315/- on which the court fee has already been paid.

4. It is submitted that these amendments are necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties and these are also expedient in view of the pendency of the suit for 50 years before this Court. This suit has been taken up for final arguments on number of occasions, but because of pendency of appeals arising out of another suit for partition of immovable and movable properties located in Rampur, U.P. between the same parties, the hearing of the present suit has been deferred. The decision of the Supreme Court has been delivered on 21st July, 2019 in 'Talat Fatima Hasan v. Syed Murtaza Ali Khan (D) by LRs and Others (2020) 15 SCC 655'.

5. It is further asserted that during the pendency of the appeals before the Supreme Court, the contesting defendants had filed a Transfer petition in the Supreme Court seeking transfer of this case to Supreme Court. However, the said petition was rejected.

6. It is claimed that in case the amendments are not allowed, the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and would be prejudiced beyond restitution while no prejudice shall be caused to the other parties.

A prayer is, therefore, made that the amendment of the paragraphs as stated above, may be allowed.

7. The application is contested by defendant No. 1(iv) who in his detailed reply has asserted that all the averments made in the application are traversed and specifically denied except those which are admitted expressly. It is claimed that the application is malafide, misconceived and misguided and is a gross abuse of the process of law.

8. The first plea taken to oppose the proposed amendments is that they are barred by limitation. It is claimed that the proposed insertions are based on the basis of demise of parties from time to time and inclusion of legal heirs as well as change of their shares on account of demise. The cause of action for effecting these changes first arose on 07th February, 1982 and last on 03rd August, 1993. Despite having impleaded the legal heirs, the plaintiff failed to seek corresponding changes in the shares of the parties by way of amendment of the plaint. No reason has been given for filing this application after a delay of almost 30-40 years. The proposed amendments are, therefore, liable to be rejected. The proposed amendments are also hopelessly barred by time.

9. Likewise, it is asserted that the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court was varied by Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 2015 read with Notification No. 27187/DHC/Orgl. dated 24th November, 2015 whereby all Civil suits having a valuation of less than Rs